4 ms·

It's not luck, it's time. Evolution occurs so extraordinarily slowly, it's hard to comprehend. People are trying to create intelligence a million times faster t

It's not luck, it's time. Evolution occurs so extraordinarily slowly, it's hard to comprehend. People are trying to create intelligence a million times faster than evolution did.

tim333 8y ago
Well that's the usual view but it's based on random mutations so there must be some luck involved. A change of the make this muscle a bit bigger type may involve the equivalent of one bit flipping and so happen all the time but the mechanisms of intelligence may involve a much harder sequence to come up with. It's hard enough to program neural networks using code and tensor flow. Imagine having to do it by giving the DNA code to make some proteins that then have to construct an intricate 100bn neurone brain for you.
- rwmj 8y ago
  Even a tiny bit of intelligence is useful if your competitors are all dumb. It starts from there.
- speedplane 8y ago
  You're giving far too much weight to "luck" and far too little to extraordinary time-lengths. Computers struggle to handle a single genome, let alone mix and match multiple. And even when they do, it's a single organism. In nature, there are thousand's of organisms mixing and matching, thriving and dying all the time, spread over hundreds of millions of years. No computer's bandwidth could come close to that. But I have a deeper discomfort with your question. It assumes that the neural network / tensor-flow model we use with computers approximates a human's. I'm not terribly convinced of that. Sure, human neuron's have are individually approximated by neural network neurons. But concepts such as "instinct" are not captured well by that model. It's weird that a newborn baby has seen far fewer colors, and patterns than a well trained neural network, yet seems to know far more. It signifies we're missing something pretty central to the model.

4 ms·

It's not luck, it's time. Evolution occurs so extraordinarily slowly, it's hard to comprehend. People are trying to create intelligence a million times faster t

by speedplane 8y ago

It's not luck, it's time. Evolution occurs so extraordinarily slowly, it's hard to comprehend. People are trying to create intelligence a million times faster than evolution did.

tim333 8y ago
Well that's the usual view but it's based on random mutations so there must be some luck involved. A change of the make this muscle a bit bigger type may involve the equivalent of one bit flipping and so happen all the time but the mechanisms of intelligence may involve a much harder sequence to come up with. It's hard enough to program neural networks using code and tensor flow. Imagine having to do it by giving the DNA code to make some proteins that then have to construct an intricate 100bn neurone brain for you.
- rwmj 8y ago
  Even a tiny bit of intelligence is useful if your competitors are all dumb. It starts from there.
- speedplane 8y ago
  You're giving far too much weight to "luck" and far too little to extraordinary time-lengths. Computers struggle to handle a single genome, let alone mix and match multiple. And even when they do, it's a single organism. In nature, there are thousand's of organisms mixing and matching, thriving and dying all the time, spread over hundreds of millions of years. No computer's bandwidth could come close to that. But I have a deeper discomfort with your question. It assumes that the neural network / tensor-flow model we use with computers approximates a human's. I'm not terribly convinced of that. Sure, human neuron's have are individually approximated by neural network neurons. But concepts such as "instinct" are not captured well by that model. It's weird that a newborn baby has seen far fewer colors, and patterns than a well trained neural network, yet seems to know far more. It signifies we're missing something pretty central to the model.